True JLN but I think of Christo's work a temporary sculpture using natural earth as the frame for the work.
every great work of art that has ever been created 'improves on nature' in that it creates what nature misses - our take on the process of existence.
nature just 'is'; art 'trancends'!
hmm; that's not going to be 'popular'.........
what if we flip it?
nature trancends-art just is?
I really did intend to imply that Christo was criticizing or satirizing man's imposing on nature. I'm not sure Christo is using nature to frame his work or is framing nature, Joanne, and I like your train of thought. It's a conceptual and abstract happening/event and if is critical of anything is the stagnation of two-dimensional painting. He wants each viewer to have their individual interpretation and will naturally not explain what his goal is. Seeing photos of it is like seeing "2001" on a 12 inch TV screen. The scale is definitely a major part of the impact of the work and this also holds true for abstract expressionist paintings to a degree (although Pollock, for instance, produced many very fine, smaller paintings). One has to remember when Christo started creating his works to determine what place he has in contemporary art.
Christo's work doesn't work for me, re all my criteria generally. I don't really like use of nature (see past posts), certainly to such an extent, to convey views, and besides, I don't think he wants to convey views, I think he wants to convey process. It's true, I don't actually understand his point since I haven't honed in on it.
I skoffed for at least a couple of decades. I skipped his lecture in my new hometown, not all so long ago, because I was tired, and not all that interested, and, it's true, I surely was tired and not all that interested.
Still, I am not sorry now that Christo and Claude have been here with all of us. And past all the bushwa, which is very indulgent to me, I kind of like the beauty, clapping as I rebel.
truth
Ah, you're back. I hope there'll be discussion somewhere of the Frisco powow.
About Christo, I feel the same degree of indifference. It's just a fundamental disposition which I should not--given I'm not a critic--have to rationalize. As such, however, noone has to take my indifference seriously. It's just me.
JLN, you want us to take your indifference lightly
There is a detailed account of the A2k gathering in San Francisco in the North Amierica Forum. And some great pictures as wll.
No problem here I just think like to hear what other people think. I like it but probably would not have his stuff in my back yard. Oh wait a minute I do not have a back yard. I guess I should say I do not want it in my apartnment comples.
One thing I do know is that most Coloradians were really pissed off about the exhibit in Rifle, CO.
Unfortunately, it is not something you can avoid or ignore when it overwhelms public space.
I remember what I had seen recently re Christo, it was a New Yorker article a few weeks ago about the upcoming work in Central Park. which is another kind of art work itself. The photos of some of his and her past work in the NYer article were good. I do think the work has beauty (but I'd rather see that conceptually/digitally than have it happen on real land or architectural forms) and it is, ah, usually, evanescent. Or is it? I gather from a friend that it hasn't always been removed.
On the SF a2k meeting, there are two threads, the regular one, and a new one by JJorge - I'll be back with a link.
If that was a link Joanne, it didn't have any oomph!
Try again panzade! You caught me in the middle of an edit.
Ahhhh, there it is. Who's going to trek up there to see it?
I have some friends going to New York from north north California to see Christo's Gates. I am curious how a2kers who do go look at the gates end up liking or not liking them...
I agree with Osso. I do not like to see the beauty of a natural scene obscured by the beauty of a Christo construction.
and flying parts of his work trying to kill people...
So, who's actually SEEN it? Where are our native new yorkers?
